DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a nonfinal in response to claims filed on 10/25/2023. Claims 1-22 are pending and are examined herein.
Priority
The present application has an earlier filed provisional application #63/381,283 with a filing date of 10/27/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2023 and 04/04/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter
The independent claims 1, 12 and 18 are treated as the representative claims for the 2-step analysis. The dependent claims will be reanalyzed after the initial 2-step analysis on the independent claims. The representative claims are directed to:
Claims 1-11: A token adjustment system, comprising:
Claims 12-17: A method for adjusting tokens, comprising:
Claims 18-22: A device operable to adjust tokens, comprising:
The claims above are directed to at least one of the potentially eligible subject matter categories, “process, machine, or manufacture” and are therefore to be further analyzed under step 2.
Step 2a Prong 1: Does the claim recite a Judicial Exception? (A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
Claim 1, 12 and 18 recite the following, wherein the abstract idea has been bolded and the additional elements are italicized:
Claim 1: A token adjustment system, comprising:
- a carbon conversion device operable to generate a syngas from a greenhouse gas;
- a processing device operable to: receive one or more measurements, wherein the one or more measurements comprise one or more of an input flow measurement received from an input flow sensor, an output flow measurement received from an output flow sensor, an energy measurement from an energy sensor, or a utility measurement received from a utility sensor;
- compute one or more of a carbon balance, a carbon intensity, or a carbon adjustment based on the one or more measurements; and
- cause a token to be generated or consumed based on the one or more of the carbon balance, the carbon intensity, or the carbon adjustment.
Claim 12: A method for adjusting tokens, comprising:
- detecting one or more measurements comprising one or more of an input flow measurement received from an input flow sensor, an output flow measurement received from an output flow sensor, an energy measurement from an energy sensor, or a utility measurement received from a utility sensor;
- computing one or more of a carbon balance, a carbon intensity, or a carbon adjustment based on the one or more measurements; and
- causing a token to be adjusted based on the one or more of the carbon balance, the carbon intensity, or the carbon adjustment.
Claim 18: A device operable to adjust tokens, comprising:
- a sensor operable to measure one or more metrics comprising one or more of an environmental input metric, an environmental output metric, or an environmental energy metric;
- a processing device operable to: compute an environmental effect based on the one or more metrics; and
- cause a token to be adjusted based on the environmental effect.
When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claims 1, 12, and 18 recite an abstract idea under the category “certain methods of organizing human activity.” This abstract idea grouping found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) includes concepts related to “fundamental economic principles or practices,” “commercial or legal interactions,” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” The present invention falls under “commercial or legal interactions” which include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The claim elements in bold recite steps for adjusting tokens based on various input data. More specifically, the steps of receiving/detecting/measuring measurement values to compute a carbon balance, carbon intensity, carbon adjustment, or environmental effect, and generating/consuming/adjusting a token based on the computation merely recites rule based data interactions towards performing the abstract idea. Therefore, in short, each of the bolded elements represents data collection, processing, and output steps towards performing the “commercial or legal interaction”, therefore the claims recite an abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claims 1, 12 and 18 recite the following additional elements:
- a carbon conversion device operable to generate a syngas from a greenhouse gas;
- processing device in claim 1 and 18
- input flow sensor, output flow sensor, energy sensor, utility sensor in claims 1 and 12
- sensor operatable to... in claim 18
-device operable to adjust tokens in claim 18
The additional elements are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a generic computing device. In this case, the abstract idea of receiving/detecting/measuring measurement values to compute a carbon balance, carbon intensity, carbon adjustment, or environmental effect, and generating/consuming/adjusting a token based on the computation is merely instructed to be performed on generic computers or generic computing components such as a carbon conversion device, processing device, sensors, and device operable to adjust tokens. Evidence towards the genericness of the devices in question can be found in the instant specification [0105], “The method 1100 may be performed by processing logic that may include hardware (circuitry, dedicated logic, etc.), software (such as is run on a general purpose computer system or a dedicated machine), or a combination of both, which processing logic may be included in any computer system or device.” Furthermore, the input flow sensor, output flow sensor, energy sensor, utility sensors are merely devices operating in their ordinary capacity to perform economic tasks such as collecting data. Since the sensors themselves are merely the means in which data is collected, and the invention is not directed towards improved sensing technology, these sensors are also merely “apply it” level elements under MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.”
Even when considering the carbon conversion device operable to generate a syngas from a greenhouse gas, the claims merely recite the device itself but not a particular function of generating the syngas. However, this device does not result in an integration to a practical application because it is merely an object in which the method operates, and its involvement is merely the device in which the data is gathering. MPEP 2106.05(b), which describes the Particular Machine consideration states, “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Furthermore, in section III, “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more.” Therefore, the carbon conversion device which is merely the device in which data is gathered from, but does not actually claim the process of carbon conversion does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, after considering the claim scope in its entirety, including all of the additional elements in combination or individually, the additional elements above are merely an example of “apply it” or mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on generic computers. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1, 12 and 18 recite the following additional elements:
- a carbon conversion device operable to generate a syngas from a greenhouse gas;
- processing device in claim 1 and 18
- input flow sensor, output flow sensor, energy sensor, utility sensor in claims 1 and 12
- sensor configured to... in claim 18
-device operable to adjust tokens in claim 18
These additional elements have not been found to include significantly more for the same reasons set forth in the Prong 2 rejection, specifically because the additional elements are generic computing devices being used to carry out the abstract idea, or using other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). More specifically, using generic computing components such as a carbon conversion device, processing device, sensors, and device operable to adjust tokens to perform the abstract idea of receiving/detecting/measuring measurement values to compute a carbon balance, carbon intensity, carbon adjustment, or environmental effect, and generating/consuming/adjusting a token based on the computation does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Furthermore, no improvements to these computing devices have been purported since they are generic computing components instructed to perform the abstract idea or are generic devices operating in their ordinary capacity. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the use of the abstract idea such that it is significantly more. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent Claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-22 have been analyzed, both individually and in combination with the claims they depend on, under the full 2-step eligibility analysis:
Claims 2, 9, 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 further limit the abstract idea by defining the specific rules that determine how the token is generated or adjusted based on the computed data. As a non-limiting example also applicable to claims 9, 13, 14, 19, 20, and 21, claim 2 recites, “wherein the token is generated to have a token value based on the one or more of the carbon balance, the carbon intensity, or the carbon adjustment.” This is more of the same abstract idea of “commercial or legal interactions” because it is merely a basic data processing step that is merely a rule-based adjustment of a variable. Furthermore, there are no additional elements recited in these dependent claims, therefore, even when considering the previous additional elements individually or in combination, along with the dependent claims, they still fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore 2, 9, 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 15, 16 further limit the abstract idea by defining how the “compute” step determines the carbon balance, intensity, adjustment or the environmental output metric. As a non-limiting example also representative of claims 4 ,5 , 15, and 16 claim 3 recites, “wherein the one or more of the carbon balance, the carbon intensity, or the carbon adjustment is computed based on one or more of a total carbon input, a total carbon output, an energy, or a utility used for carbon reduction.” This is more of the same abstract idea of “commercial or legal interactions” because it merely indicates the formula/rules in which the computation is performed whilst still performing the steps of receiving/detecting/measuring measurement values to compute a carbon balance, carbon intensity, carbon adjustment, or environmental effect, and generating/consuming/adjusting a token based on the computation. Furthermore, there are no additional elements recited in these dependent claims, therefore, even when considering the previous additional elements individually or in combination, along with the dependent claims, they still fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, 3, 4, 5, 15, and 16 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 6, 7, 8, and 10 merely further limit the abstract idea by adding limitations to the chemical makeup of the greenhouse gas (claim 6), the ratio in which syngas is generated (claim 7), the generating of decarbonized products from the syngas (claim 8), and the chemical makeup of the decarbonized products (claim 10). Since the generation of a syngas is merely the event being sensed to collect data, the chemical makeup of the gases and ratio in which syngas is generated is merely reciting the particular type or format of data being collected whilst still performing the same abstract idea of receiving/detecting/measuring measurement values to compute a carbon balance, carbon intensity, carbon adjustment, or environmental effect, and generating/consuming/adjusting a token based on the computation, which is still a commercial or legal interaction under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The additional element of “a syngas transformation device operable to generate one or more decarbonized products from the syngas” is another “apply it” additional element for the same reasons that the carbon conversion device is “apply it.” Though the claims do recite “generating one or more decarbonized products from the syngas,” the claims do not actually provide a process or functional steps towards performing the conversion but merely recite a device performing the steps. Since the syngas transformation device is merely the machine on which the method operates by collecting data from the sensors on the device, it is still an “apply it” level element. Therefore, even when considering the previous additional elements individually or in combination, along with the dependent claims, they still fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore 6, 7, 8, and 10 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 11, 17, and 22 merely further limit the abstract idea by adding the step of validating the token using location data. This is merely more of the same additional element because using location to validate the token is a “commercial or legal interaction” in the same way that verifying a person’s address by checking a license is. It is recited so broadly that does not describe how the validating takes place or meaningfully limiting what it entails. Furthermore, there are no additional elements recited in these dependent claims, therefore, even when considering the previous additional elements individually or in combination, along with the dependent claims, they still fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, 11, 17 and 22 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yelvington et al. (US 20220388930 A1) hereinafter Yelvington, in view of Harry Slack (US 20230139137 A1) hereinafter Slack.
Regarding Claim 1:
Yelvington teaches:
A token adjustment system, comprising: (Yelvington [0148] In embodiments, these systems also have monitory and metering devices to monitor and control and memory devices to record the amount of flare gas processed, the amount of product produced and the amount, if any, of CO.sub.2 produced. This information will be recorded in a secure manner for use or transmission to support carbon capture credits, or other regulatory or private equity or exchange transaction relating to CO.sub.2. [0150] A block-chain based record of the carbon captured or carbon offset measurement will improve the quality of the measurement system through networked, secure record keeping. A blockchain-based carbon credit may then be sold as part of a cryptocurrency or other verifiable token in a voluntary carbon market as a carbon offset.)
- a carbon conversion device operable to generate a syngas from a greenhouse gas; a processing device operable to: (Yelvington [0184] Embodiments of the present inventions have a turbine engine, e.g., air breathing gas turbine engine, as the reformer to produce reprocessed gas, preferably syngas. Thus, and generally, in some embodiments the reformer 114 of FIG. 1 is a gas turbine engine. In some embodiments gas turbines are preferred under certain circumstances (such as larger magnitudes of wellhead flows), as they provide advantages over embodiments using reciprocating engines to produce syngas. The gas turbine-based systems are suitable for larger scale gas-to liquid (e.g., flare gas to methanol) applications where there are packaging limitations, e.g., on-site footprint limitations. [0003] The term “flare gas” and similar such terms should be given their broadest possible meaning, and would include gas generated, created, associated or produced by, or from, oil and gas production, hydrocarbon wells (including shall, conventional and unconventional wells), petrochemical processing, refining, landfills, waste water treatment, dairies, livestock production, and other municipal, chemical and industrial processes. Thus, for example, flare gas would include stranded gas, associated gas, landfill gas, vented gas, biogas, digester gas, small-pocket gas, and remote gas. ) Yelvington’s flare gas is mapped to “greenhouse gas” because it is gas that is the byproduct of oil and gas production such as CO2 and methane. Therefore, the air breathing gas turbine that generates a syngas, satisfies the limitation.
- receive one or more measurements, (Yelvington [0318] This control system also has components for calculation, obtaining and storing data and information about the operation of the system and process, e.g. process information and data. This process data and information can, among other things, include: mass balance data and information (e.g., kg of flare gas into system, kg of methanel produced, kg of exhaust produced, etc.), carbon capture data and information, CO.sub.2e related data and information, and combinations and variations thereof and well as other types of data and information.)
- wherein the one or more measurements comprise one or more of an input flow measurement received from an input flow sensor, an output flow measurement received from an output flow sensor, an energy measurement from an energy sensor, or a utility measurement received from a utility sensor; (Yelvington [0148] In embodiments, these systems also have monitory and metering devices to monitor and control and memory devices to record the amount of flare gas processed, the amount of product produced and the amount, if any, of CO.sub.2 produced. [0172] These sensors can include: [0174] Lambda sensor (sensor that infers air to fuel ratio from exhaust gas composition, typically mounted downstream of exhaust valves) [0177] Fuel sensors including mass flow, dew point temperature, and heating value (e.g., calorimeter) [0148] In embodiments, these systems also have monitory and metering devices to monitor and control and memory devices to record the amount of flare gas processed, the amount of product produced and the amount, if any, of CO.sub.2 produced. [0335] The remote-control system 2350, the control system 2320 and both are configured to monitor, calculate, record, store and transmit, information about any and all aspects of the operation of system 2301, e.g., flow rates, mass flow, density, temperature, settings of equipment, exhaust conditions, etc. [0285] Further, turning to FIG. 17A there is shown the predicted compressor work (total and for syngas compression only), as a function of the engine exhaust backpressure for a 50 bar downstream synthesis pressure. These data are generated using a chemical process simulation that performed the mass and energy balances for the embodiment of a liquid-to-gas system and method of the type shown in FIG. 16. ) Since Yelvington teaches fuel sensors including mass flow, or flow rates, therefore since the list of measurements only requires “One or more of” then the limitation has been satisfied. Regardless, [0285] has been included to show that “energy measured from an energy sensor” is also taught (mass and energy balances.)
- compute one or more of a carbon balance, a carbon intensity, or a carbon adjustment based on the one or more measurements; and (Yelvington [0110] In embodiments, the control system includes a blockchain for authenticating the operation of the system and method, e.g., mass balance of method and operation, and to validate, encrypt and authentic data related to carbon capture, reduction of greenhouse gases, carbon credits, and the like. [0318] This control system also has components for calculation, ... This process data and information can, among other things, include: mass balance data and information (e.g., kg of flare gas into system, kg of methanol produced, kg of exhaust produced, etc.), carbon capture data and information, CO.sub.2e related data and information, and combinations and variations thereof and well as other types of data and information. [0010] As used herein unless specified otherwise, the term “CO.sub.2e” is used to define carbon dioxide equivalence of other, more potent greenhouse gases, to carbon dioxide (e.g., methane and nitrous oxide) on a global warming potential basis of 100 years, based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) methodology. The term “carbon intensity” is taken to mean the lifecycle CO.sub.2e generated per unit mass of a product.) Yelvington’s mass balance (which can include CO2) is an example of carbon balance. And Yelvington also teaches “carbon intensity.”
Yelvington fails to teach:
- cause a token to be generated or consumed based on the one or more of the carbon balance, the carbon intensity, or the carbon adjustment. While Yelvington discloses selling verifiable tokens or cryptocurrency that represents blockchain-based carbon credit (in [0150]), Yelvington does not specifically disclose the mechanism in which a token is generated.
Alternatively, Slack discloses a tokenized carbon credit trading platform that elaborates how tokens are generated, adjusted, or consumed based on sensed data and carbon offsets. Slack teaches:
- cause a token to be generated or consumed based on the one or more of the carbon balance, the carbon intensity, or the carbon adjustment. (Slack [0018] In another embodiment, the present invention is directed to a system for trading carbon credits, wherein carbon reductions and/or carbon offset measures are validated as non-fungible tokens (NFTs) on a distributed ledger, [0057] One of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the types of projects able to offset and/or abate an amount of carbon sufficient to generate carbon NFTs vary. By way of example and not limitation, projects include carbon sequestration projects, initiatives to reduce annual (or semiannual, monthly, weekly, daily, etc.) carbon emissions, initiatives to reduce carbon emissions produced by products (e.g., initiatives to make more fuel-efficient vehicles), carbon recycling projects, and other projects. In a specific embodiment, carbon NFTs are automatically generated when 1 ton of greenhouse gases are saved as a result of closing abandoned oil and/or gas wells.) In slack, the measurement of carbon offset corresponds to Yelvington’s carbon balance because both are referring to the net equivalent CO2 being reduced from the air. Since Slack recites carbon NFTs being automatically generated when 1 ton of greenhouse gases are saved, this is an example of a toke being generated based on carbon balance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Yelvington by specifically implementing Slack’s blockchain based token trading system as the Blockchain system used to the track the carbon conversion device of Yelvington. Such a combination would yield the predictable outcome of generating tokens based on the carbon balance, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to apply the mass balance calculations in Yelvington to product the NFTs in Slack, since the carbon conversion is an example of “carbon recycling projects.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine as both inventions share the same desired goal of improving the reliability and accuracy of measuring carbon offsets by using blockchain systems. (Yelvington [0150] [0150] A block-chain based record of the carbon captured or carbon offset measurement will improve the quality of the measurement system through networked, secure record keeping. A blockchain-based carbon credit may then be sold as part of a cryptocurrency or other verifiable token in a voluntary carbon market as a carbon offset.) (Slack [0069] Advantageously, a smart contract is more transparent than traditional coded contracts because it is stored on a distributed ledger.)
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Yelvington and Slack teach The token adjustment system of claim 1,
However, Yelvington fails to teach:
-wherein the token is generated to have a token value based on the one or more of the carbon balance, the carbon intensity, or the carbon adjustment.
Alternatively, Slack teaches:
-wherein the token is generated to have a token value based on the one or more of the carbon balance, the carbon intensity, or the carbon adjustment.(Slack [0043] One of ordinary skill in the art will understand that each carbon credit NFT minted by the platform does not necessarily correspond to a single carbon credit, but is able to correspond to a plurality of carbon credits associated with a specific offset project or a single carbon credit [0046] In another embodiment, the one or more sensors are able to detect when 1 ton of CO2 has been sequestered from the environment, and, in response, one carbon credit NFT is added to a wallet associated with the company profile. [0042] In one embodiment, after calculating the total number of carbon credits, the platform mints an NFT representing each carbon credit, wherein the tokenized carbon credit is a non-fungible token.) Since Slack’s NFTs are generated with a corresponding amount of carbon credits that represents a certain offset of 1 tonne, then the limitation has been satisfied because the carbon credit is the token value.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Yelvington by adding Slack’s generation of a token with a corresponding value based on an amount of carbon offset (ie 1 tonne of carbon). One would have been motivated to perform this combination by the benefit of slack to provide a system that allows for trading of fractional carbon credits for smaller entities. (Slack [0042] Advantageously, the carbon credit NFTs or NFTs representing other greenhouse gases are operable to be fractionalized. In other words, the present invention provides for trading of fractions of carbon NFTs representing carbon credits. Traditionally, carbon credits have been traded in tonnes, thereby preventing trading of portions of carbon offsets, and preventing individuals or entities which cannot afford whole tonnes from participating in carbon credit markets. The present invention meets the longstanding, unmet need of allowing trading of fractions of tonnes through carbon credit NFTs representing carbon offsets.)
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Yelvington and Slack teach The token adjustment system of claim 1,
Furthermore, Yelvington teaches:
-wherein the one or more of the carbon balance, the carbon intensity, or the carbon adjustment is computed based on one or more of a total carbon input, a total carbon output, an energy, or a utility used for carbon reduction. (Yelvington [0318] This control system also has components for calculation, obtaining and storing data and information about the operation of the system and process, e.g. process information and data. This process data and information can, among other things, include: mass balance data and information (e.g., kg of flare gas into system, kg of methanol produced, kg of exhaust produced, etc.)) This teaching above satisfies the limitation because it shows that the mass balance data is computed based on kg of flare gas into the system (which satisfies the total carbon input). The limitation also only requires “one or more out of...” the limitations, therefore the limitation has been met because mass balance based on total input has been taught (both of which can represent carbon).
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Yelvington and Slack teach The token adjustment system of claim 1,
Furthermore, Yelvington teaches:
- wherein the one or more of the carbon balance, the carbon intensity, or the carbon adjustment is computed based on one or more of a carbon input flow rate, a carbon output flowrate, an energy, or a utility used for carbon reduction. (Yelvington [0335] The remote-control system 2350, the control system 2320 and both are configured to monitor, calculate, record, store and transmit, information about any and all aspects of the operation of system 2301, e.g., flow rates, mass flow, density, temperature, settings of equipment, exhaust conditions, etc. Among of things, these operation aspects would include: mass balance data and information (e.g., kg of flare gas into system, kg of methanal produced, kg of exhaust produced, etc.). This information and data can be and processed to determine and record, preferably real time, GWP information and data, carbon capture information and data, CO2e information and data, for the operation of system 2301, and preferably for the real time operation of system 2301.) Same as the explanation for claim 3, except [0335] also includes flow rates, and mass flow density, for both intake and exhaust.
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Yelvington and Slack teach The token adjustment system of claim 1,
Yelvington teaches:
- wherein the one or more of the carbon intensity or the carbon adjustment is computed based on the carbon balance.(Yelvington [0010] The term “carbon intensity” is taken to mean the lifecycle CO.sub.2e generated per unit mass of a product.) Carbon intensity based on “lifecycle CO2.sub.2e generated” satisfies “computed based on carbon balance” because CO.sub.2e generated represents carbon balance.
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Yelvington and Slack teach The token adjustment system of claim 1,
Furthermore, Yelvington teaches:
- wherein the greenhouse gas is one or more of CO2 or CH4.(Yelvington [0004] For instance, gases released during oil-gas production mainly contain natural gas. Natural gas is more than 90% methane (CH.sub.4) with ethane and smaller amounts of other hydrocarbons, water, N.sub.2 and CO.sub.2 may also be present. Flare gas from refineries and other chemical or manufacturing operations typically can be a mixture of hydrocarbons and in some cases H.sub.2. Landfill gas, biogas or digester gas typically can be a mixture of CH.sub.4 and CO.sub.2, as well as small amounts of other inert gases. In general, flare gas can contain one or more of the following gases: methane, ethane, propane, n-butane, isobutane, n-pentane, isopentane, n-hexane, ethylene, propylene, 1-butene, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and water.)
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Yelvington and Slack teach The token adjustment system of claim 1,
Furthermore, Yelvington teaches:
- wherein the syngas is generated at a ratio of from about 0.5:1 of H2:CO to about 3:1 of H2:CO.(Yelvington [0062] wherein a ratio of H.sub.2 to CO in the syngas is from 0.8 to 2.5; wherein a ratio of H.sub.2 to CO in the syngas is from about 2 to about 3; wherein a ratio of H.sub.2 to CO in the syngas is from 1.1-2.5; wherein a ratio of H.sub.2 to CO is less than 3; wherein a ratio of H.sub.2 to CO is less than 2.5;)
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Yelvington and Slack teach The token adjustment system of claim 1,
further comprising:
Furthermore, Yelvington teaches:
- a syngas transformation device operable to generate one or more decarbonized products from the syngas. (Yelvington [0340] A system and process to convert otherwise uneconomic hydrocarbon-based fuel such as flare gas to value-added, easily transported products (such as methanol, ethanol, ammonia, dimethyl-ether, F-T liquids, and other fuels or chemicals) using an autonomous, modular system comprising the following elements: (1) a fuel conditioning system to meet requirements of downstream components; (2) an air-breathing gas turbine, modified to operate a rich, partial-oxidation reformer, to produce a syngas mixture with a H.sub.2/CO ratio suitable for synthesis of liquids; (3) a combination of integrated heat exchangers, compression system components, and heat exchangers to prepare the syngas for the downstream synthesis reactors; and (4) a downstream synthesis reactor system to produce useful liquid hydrocarbon products.) The instant specification provides examples of decarbonized gas such as “The decarbonized products 404a may include one or more of methanol, ethanol, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), acid, or any other suitable chemical, fuel, or compound” in [0063].
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Yelvington and Slack teach The token adjustment system of claim 1,
While Yelvington teaches that the carbon credits are based on kg of methanol produced in [0335], and since methanol is one example of decarbonized products, then one can conclude that Yelvington determines the mass balance equation based on decarbonized products. However, Yelvington does not directly teach or disclose:
- wherein the token has a token value based on the one or more decarbonized products.
However, Slack teaches:
- wherein the token has a token value based on the carbon balance (Slack [0043] One of ordinary skill in the art will understand that each carbon credit NFT minted by the platform does not necessarily correspond to a single carbon credit, but is able to correspond to a plurality of carbon credits associated with a specific offset project or a single carbon credit [0046] In another embodiment, the one or more sensors are able to detect when 1 ton of CO2 has been sequestered from the environment, and, in response, one carbon credit NFT is added to a wallet associated with the company profile. [0042] In one embodiment, after calculating the total number of carbon credits, the platform mints an NFT representing each carbon credit, wherein the tokenized carbon credit is a non-fungible token.) Since Slack’s NFTs are generated with a corresponding amount of carbon credits that represents a certain offset of 1 tonne, then the limitation has been satisfied because the carbon credit is the token value.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Yelvington by adding Slack’s generation of a token with a corresponding value based on an amount of carbon offset (ie 1 tonne of carbon). Since Yelvington’s carbon balance is based on decarbonized products, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the combination would yield the predictable outcome of a token having a token value based on the decarbonized products (methanol). One would have been motivated to perform this combination by the benefit of slack to provide a system that allows for trading of fractional carbon credits for smaller entities. (Slack [0042] Advantageously, the carbon credit NFTs or NFTs representing other greenhouse gases are operable to be fractionalized. In other words, the present invention provides for trading of fractions of carbon NFTs representing carbon credits. Traditionally, carbon credits have been traded in tonnes, thereby preventing trading of portions of carbon offsets, and preventing individuals or entities which cannot afford whole tonnes from participating in carbon credit markets. The present invention meets the longstanding, unmet need of allowing trading of fractions of tonnes through carbon credit NFTs representing carbon offsets.)
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Yelvington and Slack teach The token adjustment system of claim 1,
Furthermore, Yelvington teaches:
-wherein the one or more decarbonized products are one or more of methanol, ethanol, acids, ammonia, hydrogen, or sustainable aviation fuel.(Yelvington [0062] wherein the end product is selected from the group consisting of methanol, ethanol, ammonia, mixed alcohols, dimethyl-ether, and F-T liquids; wherein the end product consist of methanol; [0130] The pressure and temperature-controlled syngas is then feed to reactors for transforming the syngas into a more useful, more easily transportable, and economically viable product such as methanol, ethanol, mixed alcohols, ammonia, dimethyl-ether, F-T liquids, and other fuels or chemicals.)
Regarding Claim 11:
The combination of Yelvington and Slack teach The token adjustment system of claim 1,
However, Yelvington fails to teach:
- wherein the token is validated using location data.
However, Slack teaches:
- wherein the token is validated using location data. (Slack [0041] In one embodiment of the present invention, one carbon NFT equates to one carbon credit. In one embodiment, for each project uploaded by a company, the platform requires a first validation by the company or a party approved by the company. In one embodiment, the second validation is performed by an artificial intelligence module associated with the platform. In one embodiment, the artificial intelligence module takes into account at least one image of a site associated with the project, a comparison to prior, similar projects, satellite imagery of the site associated with the project, sensor data, and/or other data. [0043] In one embodiment, the NFT includes information regarding the project used to generate the carbon credit, including, but not limited to, a carbon credit issuance serial number, a name of the associated project, a location (e.g., geospatial coordinates, which are determined via a Global Positioning System (GPS) in one embodiment) of the project, a project start date, a project end date, a project duration, a company associated with the project, at least one image of the project, and/or an expiration date for the carbon credit.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Yelvington by adding Slack’s validation using location data feature. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated by the benefit that such a system would ensure that each individual token actually corresponds to real-life projects that are deemed valid. (Slack [0041] FIG. 1 illustrates a flow chart for a system for generating and trading carbon credit NFTs. In one embodiment, the platform, including a server having a processor and a database, receives registration information from at least one company, validates the registration, and receives registration information for individual carbon offset and/or carbon reduction projects, including information regarding the amount of carbon offset from each project. In one embodiment, the platform calculates a number of total carbon credits corresponding to each project.)
Regarding Claim 12:
Yelvington teaches:
A method for adjusting tokens, comprising: (Yelvington [0148] In embodiments, these systems also have monitory and metering devices to monitor and control and memory devices to record the amount of flare gas processed, the amount of product produced and the amount, if any, of CO.sub.2 produced. This information will be recorded in a secure manner for use or transmission to support carbon capture credits, or other regulatory or private equity or exchange transaction relating to CO.sub.2. [0150] A block-chain based record of the carbon captured or carbon offset measurement will improve the quality of the measurement system through networked, secure record keeping. A blockchain-based carbon credit may then be sold as part of a cryptocurrency or other verifiable token in a voluntary carbon market as a carbon offset.)
- detecting one or more measurements comprising one or more of an input flow measurement received from an input flow sensor, an output flow measurement received from an output flow sensor, an energy measurement from an energy sensor, or a utility measurement received from a utility sensor; (Yelvington [0318] This control system also has components for calculation, obtaining and storing data and information about the operation of the system and process, e.g. process information and data. This process data and information can, among other things, include: mass balance data and information (e.g., kg of flare gas into system, kg of methanel produced, kg of exhaust produced, etc.), carbon capture data and information, CO.sub.2e related data and information, and combinations and variations thereof and well as other types of data and information. [0148] In embodiments, these systems also have monitory and metering devices to monitor and control and memory devices to record the amount of flare gas processed, the amount of product produced and the amount, if any, of CO.sub.2 produced. [0172] These sensors can include: [0174] Lambda sensor (sensor that infers air to fuel ratio from exhaust gas composition, typically mounted downstream of exhaust valves) [0177] Fuel sensors including mass flow, dew point temperature, and heating value (e.g., calorimeter) [0148] In embodiments, these systems also have monitory and metering devices to monitor and control and memory devices to record the amount of flare gas processed, the amount of product produced and the amount, if any, of CO.sub.2 produced. [0335] The remote-control system 2350, the control system 2320 and both are configured to monitor, calculate, record, store and transmit, information about any and all aspects of the operation of system 2301, e.g., flow rates, mass flow, density, temperature, settings of equipment, exhaust conditions, etc.) Since Yelvington teaches fuel sensors including mass flow, or flow rates, therefore since the list of measurements only requires “One or more of” then the limitation has been satisfied. Regardless, [0285] has been included to show that “energy measured from an energy sensor” is also taught (mass and energy balances.)
- computing one or more of a carbon balance, a carbon intensity, or a carbon adjustment based on the one or more measurements; and (Yelvington [0110] In embodiments, the control system includes a blockchain for authenticating the operation of the system and method, e.g., mass balance of method and operation, and to validate, encrypt and authentic data related to carbon capture, reduction of greenhouse gases, carbon credits, and the like. [0318] This control system also has components for calculation, ... This process data and information can, among other things, include: mass balance data and information (e.g., kg of flare gas into system, kg of methanol produced, kg of exhaust produced, etc.), carbon capture data and information, CO.sub.2e related data and information, and combinations and variations thereof and well as other types of data and information. [0010] As used herein unless specified otherwise, the term “CO.sub.2e” is used to define carbon dioxide equivalence of other, more potent greenhouse gases, to carbon dioxide (e.g., methane and nitrous oxide) on a global warming potential basis of 100 years, based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) methodology. The term “carbon intensity” is taken to mean the lifecycle CO.sub.2e generated per unit mass of a product.) Yelvington’s mass balance (which can include CO2) is an example of carbon balance. And Yelvington also teaches “carbon intensity.”
Yelvington fails to teach:
- cause a token to be generated or consumed based on the one or more of the carbon balance, the carbon intensity, or the carbon adjustment. While Yelvington discloses selling verifiable tokens or cryptocurrency that represents blockchain-based carbon credit (in [0150]), Yelvington does not specifically disclose the mechanism in which a token is generated.
Alternatively, Slack discloses a tokenized carbon credit trading platform that elaborates how tokens are generated, adjusted, or consumed based on sensed data and carbon offsets. Slack teaches:
- cause a token to be generated or consumed based on the one or more of the carbon balance, the carbon intensity, or the carbon adjustment. (Slack [0018] In another embodiment, the present invention is directed to a system for trading carbon credits, wherein carbon reductions and/or carbon offset measures are validated as non-fungible tokens (NFTs) on a distributed ledger, [0057] One of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the types of projects able to offset and/or abate an amount of carbon sufficient to generate carbon NFTs vary. By way of example and not limitation, projects include carbon sequestration projects, initiatives to reduce annual (or semiannual, monthly, weekly, daily, etc.) carbon emissions, initiatives to reduce carbon emissions produced by products (e.g., initiatives to make more fuel-efficient vehicles), carbon recycling projects, and other projects. In a specific embodiment, carbon NFTs are automatically generated when 1 ton of greenhouse gases are saved as a result of closing abandoned oil and/or gas wells.) In slack, the measurement of carbon offset corresponds to Yelvington’s carbon balance because both are referring to the net equivalent CO2 being reduced from the air. Since Slack recites carbon NFTs being automatically generated when 1 ton of greenhouse gases are saved, this is an example of a toke being generated based on carbon balance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Yelvington by specifically implementing Slack’s blockchain based token trading system as the Blockchain system used to the track the carbon conversion device of Yelvington. Such a combination would yield the predictable outcome of generating tokens based on the carbon balance, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to apply the mass balance calculations in Yelvington to product the NFTs in Slack, since the carbon conversion is an example of “carbon recycling projects.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine as both inventions share the same desired goal of improving the reliability and accuracy of measuring carbon offsets by using blockchain systems. (Yelvingto